Vitamins & Supplements,
according to AI
Every week we ask ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini the questions real UK consumers ask about vitamins & supplements — and record exactly which brands they put forward. Right now, Boots owns the conversation.
0 AI answers this run · 0 brands named · measured, never estimated
Boots is the default answer.
Named in 8% of vitamins & supplements answers, typically in position 3.6. Superdrug follows at 7%, Bulk at 5%.
Every brand AI names, ranked.
Visibility is the share of answers naming the brand; citation share is its slice of all brand-owned pages cited; read→cited is how often its pages convert a read into a citation.
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Boots | 8% | 3.6 | 19% | 33% |
| 2 | Superdrug | 7% | 3.3 | 9% | 40% |
| 3 | Bulk | 5% | 1.0 | 0% | — |
| 4 | Holland & Barrett | 5% | 2.0 | 9% | 0% |
| 5 | Centrum | 5% | 2.3 | 0% | — |
| 6 | Tesco | 5% | 2.3 | 3% | 50% |
| 7 | Asda | 5% | 3.0 | 0% | — |
| 8 | Ethical Nutrition | 3% | 1.5 | 13% | 100% |
| 9 | Doctor's Best | 2% | 1.0 | 0% | — |
| 10 | Dr.Vegan | 2% | 1.0 | 3% | 0% |
| 11 | Sainsbury's | 2% | 1.0 | 0% | 0% |
| 12 | Vitabiotics | 2% | 1.0 | 0% | — |
| 13 | Healthspan | 2% | 2.0 | 6% | — |
| 14 | Optimum Nutrition | 2% | 2.0 | 0% | — |
| 15 | Vegan Vitality | 2% | 2.0 | 3% | 100% |
The referees of vitamins & supplements.
The independent sources AI models cite when answering vitamins & supplements questions — the places a brand needs to be seen, reviewed and ranked.
Superdrug converts reads into citations. Boots doesn't.
When Claude or ChatGPT opens a brand's own pages while answering, does the page make the cited-sources list? Superdrug converts 40% of reads; Boots just 33%. That gap is a content problem, not a visibility problem.
Full data table
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Boots | 8% | 3.6 | 19% | 33% |
| 2 | Superdrug | 7% | 3.3 | 9% | 40% |
| 3 | Bulk | 5% | 1.0 | 0% | — |
| 4 | Holland & Barrett | 5% | 2.0 | 9% | 0% |
| 5 | Centrum | 5% | 2.3 | 0% | — |
| 6 | Tesco | 5% | 2.3 | 3% | 50% |
| 7 | Asda | 5% | 3.0 | 0% | — |
| 8 | Ethical Nutrition | 3% | 1.5 | 13% | 100% |
| 9 | Doctor's Best | 2% | 1.0 | 0% | — |
| 10 | Dr.Vegan | 2% | 1.0 | 3% | 0% |
| 11 | Sainsbury's | 2% | 1.0 | 0% | 0% |
| 12 | Vitabiotics | 2% | 1.0 | 0% | — |
| 13 | Healthspan | 2% | 2.0 | 6% | — |
| 14 | Optimum Nutrition | 2% | 2.0 | 0% | — |
| 15 | Vegan Vitality | 2% | 2.0 | 3% | 100% |
The models do not agree on who leads.
Ask about vitamins & supplements and the brand you are shown depends on the assistant: Claude → Centrum, Gemini → Boots, ChatGPT → Boots. Their top-five lists share just 0% of names.
Brands whose visibility swings most between models — the bar per model, widest gap on the right.
The data behind this chart
| Brand | Claude | Gemini | ChatGPT | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boots | 0% | 15% | 10% | 15pp |
| Centrum | 10% | 5% | 0% | 10pp |
| Holland & Barrett | 0% | 10% | 5% | 10pp |
| Bulk | 0% | 10% | 5% | 10pp |
| Vegan Vitality | 5% | 0% | 0% | 5pp |
| Doctor's Best | 5% | 0% | 0% | 5pp |
| Ethical Nutrition | 5% | 5% | 0% | 5pp |
| Vimerson Health | 5% | 0% | 0% | 5pp |
| Superdrug | 5% | 5% | 10% | 5pp |
| BioNutrica | 5% | 0% | 0% | 5pp |
Editorial carry vitamins & supplements.
Every page AI opened while answering, classified by what kind of page it is. Editorial supply the most citations; Comparisons convert best — 100% of the ones models opened were actually cited.
The data behind this chart
| Page type | Cited | Read but not cited | Conversion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Editorial | 230 | 64 | 78% |
| How-to guides | 140 | 17 | 89% |
| Listicles | 62 | 1 | 98% |
| Documentation | 31 | 39 | 44% |
| Comparisons | 30 | 0 | 100% |
| Product pages | 30 | 2 | 94% |
| Other | 29 | 21 | 58% |
| Reviews | 23 | 0 | 100% |
Structured data is what separates cited from ignored.
Of the vitamins & supplements pages models actually opened, how much more often each feature's pages ended up in the cited sources. Structured data is worth 29 percentage points; cites its sources pages fare 33pp worse. Measured within the read population, so selection can't flatter it.
The data behind this chart
| Feature | Pages with | Cited % | Pages without | Cited % | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structured data | 644 | 85% | 163 | 56% | +29pp |
| Named author | 436 | 82% | 371 | 77% | +5pp |
| Answer up front | 346 | 77% | 461 | 81% | -3pp |
| Specifications | 89 | 74% | 718 | 80% | -6pp |
| Comparison table | 151 | 70% | 656 | 82% | -12pp |
| Updated this year | 168 | 70% | 639 | 82% | -12pp |
| Hard statistics | 204 | 65% | 603 | 84% | -20pp |
| Cites its sources | 86 | 50% | 721 | 83% | -33pp |
Myprotein builds pages AI can quote.
Readiness scores each brand's own pages on the structure models reward — a direct answer up front, tables, hard numbers, named authors, structured data, recency, specifications. SimplySupplements is the widest gap: well-built pages that still aren't converting into citations.
| Brand | Readiness | Pages cited | Pages profiled |
|---|---|---|---|
| Myprotein | 44 | 20% | 35 |
| Healthspan | 42 | 12% | 33 |
| SimplySupplements | 41 | 0% | 4 |
| Seven Seas | 38 | 0% | 44 |
| Holland & Barrett | 30 | 37% | 38 |
| Ethical Nutrition | 25 | 73% | 11 |
| Nature's Best | 24 | 50% | 10 |
| Vitabiotics | 23 | 0% | 100 |
| Tesco | 22 | 50% | 4 |
| Vegan Vitality | 19 | 100% | 4 |
Readiness is the share of eight measurable structural signals present on a brand's profiled pages. It is a build-quality measure, not a ranking of the brand.
The questions vitamins & supplements pages have to settle.
Read straight off the pages AI cited: the consumer questions cited content answers most often. Content that fails to settle these is content models have no reason to quote.
Nineteen more categories.
Method: 20 unbranded consumer prompts per category, spread across the buying journey, run weekly against ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. Read→cited uses Claude and ChatGPT only (Gemini does not separate the two). Correlational observations of model behaviour at the time of the run. Data from the run completed Fri, 18 Sep 2026 06:50:02 GMT.